xt7wwp9t2q46_121 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Physical rights are retained by the owning repository. Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 124 "Constitutional Heresy" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine, Chairman of the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League at the Yale-Harvard-Princeton Constitutional Forum, Princeton University, May 9, 1936 text No. 124 "Constitutional Heresy" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine, Chairman of the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League at the Yale-Harvard-Princeton Constitutional Forum, Princeton University, May 9, 1936 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_124/Am_Lib_Leag_124_001/Am_Lib_Leag_124_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_121 xt7wwp9t2q46 THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE E * *
The American Liberty League is organized to defend Q ’
and uphold the Constitution of the United States and to Q
gather and disseminate information that (1) will teach Q
the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and E
property as fundamental to every successful form of gov- 3 p
ernment and (2) will teach the duty of government to E i»
encourage and protect individual and group initiative Q
and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save, § g
p and acquire property, and to preserve the ownership and § f
lawful use of property when acquired. , § * * *
The League believes in the doctrine expressed by g i
George Washington in his Farewell Address that while § I
the people may amend the Constitution to meet condi- E j
tions arising in a changing world, there must "be no p Q
change by usurpation; for this * * * is the customary Speech ef
weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Q
Since the League is wholly dependent upon the con- Q if RAOUL E- DESVERNINE
trihutions of its members for financial support it hopes Q ~ Chairman of the National Lawyers
A that you will become a contributing member. However, Q T C _ f h A _
if you cannot contribute it will welcome your support as E ‘ Ommltfce 0 I 6 mcrlcan
a non-contributing member. ‘ § Liberty League
................. ... ...... · · at the
Enl, cnt ank E Yale-Harvard-Princeton Constitutional
E U Forum, Princeton University
AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE I May 9, 1936
NAT1oNAL PRESS BUILDING ·
WAsH1NcToN, D. C. '
y Date ............... E
I desire to be enrolled as a member of the ”` v,A€ €`.q4’
American Liberty League. p 3
Signature .......................................... § A 0
g · fy tj).
lNdTIlG ••••••.•••i•.••••.••••••»·•·••••••••••••••• §
S R t
Street ........................................... Q
m : V
0 ( 3 a
E Town ............................................ “ AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
¤·' § A National Headquarters
County State § NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
§ ; ( WASHINGTON, D. C.
Enclosed find my contribution of $ .......... { * *
to help support the activities of the League. Q
(124) E Document No. 124
=
. a
. [ Constitutional Heresy
*
MY VISIT HEHE today dramatically recalls
to my mind the forebodings which that great
E political seer and philosopher expressed not so
Q — many years ago that the world was being ren-
. dered unsafe for democracy. He viewed the
c I facts, upon which he predicated this opinion,
with alarm and consternation. He knew only
l too well that human freedom could survive only
if democracy survived. History had taught him ·
~ that no other political philosophy had yet been
‘ y devised by the ingenuity of man which per-
j mitted and promoted human liberty: and it was
a deep-seated conviction with him that human
freedom was the goal, if not the achievement,
of our civilization. The survival of democracy
HEN you have finished with this was, therefore, the paramount issue in his mind,
pamphlet please pass it on to Some and apparently lil the minds of all of us who
5 unanimously rallied to h1s slogan.
friend or acquaintance who might be }
‘""""”"’d· "“”‘”g ’"’ “""’”‘“’” ‘° "“" ! MANY mers and circumstances contributed
membership blank O"' Page 16· to the World War, but the real, basic casus belli
I was the political philosophy which dominated
the Central Powers. We are too prone to over-
1 emphasize the force of material facts, and to
I I under-estimate the power of intellectual and
i spiritual forces, emotional reactions, all of which
spring primarily from our philosophy. As each
human being is prejudiced, controlled, and
· 1notivated largely by his personal philosophy of
A j life, so with nations, which are only the aggre-
gate of individuals.
~ Nations are built out of philosophy, not out
of bricks and mortar. It is their national ideals
which shape their national destinies. It is their
I, popular thinking which determines their ideas
I of the political nature, rights, and ambitions of
> the individual. Economic and social forces and
i circumstances obviously play a vital part in
i man’s existence, particularly in determining the
3 measure of his creature comforts and in provid-
{ ing for his material well-being, but man is not
f a mere robot completely and exclusively con- ·
trolled by them. He is given power over na-
* 3
i i
ture; that is his divine heritage and is what sophical abstraction. Freedom was specifically
makes him a MAN_ defined; its essential elements catalogued.
i The church edifice does not prescribe the .
reiigioui tbe reiigiou Preseriues end Produees OBVIOUSLY some restrictions are placed upon
the edifice. So with our political structure. It l the unlimited enjoyment of these individual
ie built Witu Poiirieai ideele end ideas- Our rights by virtue of common and public interest.
ideal is to have a social and economic structure Mah can only enjoy individual freedom in a
in a framework in Wbieb freedom een iiVe· land of the free. Each citizen must yield his
individual liberty to the necessary requirements
N-Owe OUR CONSTITUTION ie tue Charter of the general welfare of the society of which
of our national ideals. lt contains within its he is a memher_ Thcrgforee some regulation gf
fenr eerneie tbe piineiplee ei ent pelitieel pbi- l his individual conduct is essential. Further-
iosoPuY· Tbeee PriuoiPies maY be summarized l more, he, undoubtedly, has certain responsibil-
as Individual Liberty and Self-Government safe- ities imposed upon him as an inoident to his
guarded end snetenteed bY a Written eelenin i membership in that society. The measure and
eomPaot between tue sovereigu peeple end tbe extent of his subordination of his individual
State. Our Constitution expressly enumerates iiherty to the general Welfare, and of the
end reserves tue eivil risbte deemed tbe min- assumption of responsibilities in the public
iinnni eeeentiel te individnel liberty- Ger een- j interest, Win vary under different circumstances
stitution has erected a structure or framework and eonditions_ In determining this measure,
ei Self-seveinnient end bee pteeetibed tbe nie- the integration sud interdependence of eco-
ebeniee bY Wbieb seii‘goVerumeut eau beet eX‘ i nomic and social life must be considered;
Press iteeli end individnel liberty eau be moat emergencies and special situations must be met;
eireeiiVeiY eebieved- and, progress, scientific and otherwise, must
The limitations on the powers of the govern- play st pert_ But it is one thing to make suoh
ment; the divieien ei goverumeut Prerogaiives t t adaptations within the flexible framework of
between tbe Fedeiel— end Stete severnmenis; . eur political philosophy; and quite another to
tue seParatiou ef goVerumeutai ruuetious ue' t strive to replace our traditional philosophy with
tween different, coordinate branches of the gov- . an alien and incompatible philosophy. This is
ernment; tile eXPress reservaiiou ei eettein especially true, if it becomes apparent that new
sPeoiuo end euumerared riguis end tue senerel political architects design (and in some respects
reserVation of aii riguts net expressly, er by t they have already laid and dedicated the corner-
ueeessarY imPiieatiou» deleseted; end mere esPe‘ t stone of) the foundation and structure of a
cially the p0W€1‘ of the Suldrerne Court te. “new order,” which in its characteristic prin-
preserve and maintain the Constitution against ciplgg violate the hasie cgnggptg gf Constitu.
lHV&Sl0I1 {POD] GIIY SOUYCCQ 3I°€ I'10lZ I'I'l€].`C `II1C· ti0na1D6H10C[acy_
chanical devices or legalistic formulae, designed
only to create a workable form of government; i _ _
but are fundamental principles established to IT MIGHT WELL BE that em. eenatlmuenal
prevent the concentration of power in any single l _ eretem bee beeeme euuaedea by the maaeh ef
unit of government, no matter how democratic, 4 ume’ but let ee be_eer_tam that tleet la the fact ,
which our ancestors feared, and unequivocally n before We temper with lie feuneanene The mere
eeuedg adeepetiemgrt and to protect the reserved t fact 'that our Constitution forbids certain
liberties of the individual against governmental f tbeenee aaa prohibits eertam metheae aeee net
epp1,eeeiep_ Freedom te them meant not only n prove its madequacy to meet actualities. Other
political liberty, but economic independence. remedies and other taetheae might be em-
Freedem te them was e reality; pet a Phii0_ t ployed which are within the scope of the Con-
4 5
. . . . has been embraced. Its historic and contem-
st1tut1on and, 1n fact, such remedies and E n mmt as make this Crfactiv
methods might be equally efficacious. The hiomry umiiea P YP P '
burden of proof is on the proponent to estab- C can
lish that our Constitution is antiquated and
inadequate and that the remedies proposed and , I WONDER if the argument is not really, not
niethods pursued arg sound, ngcggggyy, and ex. that the Constitution has been outmoded by the
elusive; and that the public welfare demands march ef time; but rather by the moroh ot the
their adoption, L intellect of our political leaders; not by actual
Thus far, this proof has not been furnished, t conditioras, but rather by pet thiaoricish h
although daily demanded. The assertion that Time 065 net permit mo te otal t o tooo ·
the Constitution has Proven to bg and is fu]]y ings of the official advocates of these theories,
adequate to meet every circumstance which has but their Spooohos and hooks oro availahle te
thus far arisen, is niet on]y by abuse, not srgu. you all. Their teachings have already been ex-
ment; by assumption, not proof. But should it pressed in governmental action. The record has
be established that modernization of the Con- . been Written- Let him whe would learn, read!
stitution is advisable or necessary, then such But aheve all, the Supreme Ceurt ot tho United
modernization can easily be eftectuated, even if States has Slookoh th ho hhoottath Words ohd tts
it requires emendmenh The sovereign people, determination is binding upon us all. The Court
llavg Inadc provision for the method i has II1&dC perfectly C].€a.I° thC political
their sovereign consent to the kind of govern- PhttoSoPhY imd metlieds ot these PSottdo‘mod‘
ment by which they Wish to bc governed can ernists do not square with our institutions. Their
be authentically ascertained. Any other method iihtuoptthtii ef the “NoW or¤l» eeellelllle¤ and Seelel plllleseplly lll? ln this connection it is well for us to medi-
deubledlY are e _ faeleli lll elelellllllllllg elle S tate deeply on the wisdom of what Chief Justice
constitutional attitude. At the present time, Hughes Writes in his book, 66ThB Supreme Court
Sllell ellllelelleee are Sllellply ll°lell‘ of the United States.” Citing with approval
A There 1S no doubt that efforts to extend the Judge Bradley in the Case of Boyd v_ United
Seepe of Federal Pewell llllllel the Cellelllllllell States (1886), he tells us how best to resist the
llelie bes? made plleelleelly lllllellgllelll ellll transformation of our institutions by interpre-
national life, and that the Constitution has been tive Gxpansionistsy and by ajudicial attrition],
judicially found to be sufliciently flexible to HB Says:
meet changing conditions and emergencies, both “ _ _ _ _ _
. . . It was 1n this op1n1on that Justice Bradley
of ‘f’?l` and _peae€' The Constltutloll ls eel; a sounded his eloquent warning against permitting
fesslheed hlstemeal deeumenti but U a ·hV1ng invasions of constitutional rights because they were
organism. ACCOmmOdat1ng the C0nst1t11t10n to of a relatively mild and but slightly offensive char-
new conditions by reasonable and even ljbel-a] acter; ‘illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get
construction is, however, fundamentally dis- lllell lllsl l°°llll_g lll llllli lYlly’ namely: by Sllelll ap'
. . . , proaches and slight deviations from legal modes of
tingulsilabjc from traHSf0rm1ng_ Ou? cogstltul procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering
¤¤¤¤11¤Sm¤¤<>¤S bY felleed and lllegleel Intel" to the rule that constitutional provisions for the
pretat1ons.” The recent repeated attempts to security of persons and property should be liberally
cgntralizg unlimited Sovgygign power in the EX. C01'1Stl`l1ed. A close Bhd literal COI1StI‘l1Ctl0I1 (lepI‘lVeS
ecutive is not an “interpretative” expansion, but tllelll ef llall °l lllell: elllcacli allll lcaés le glellllal
. . . depreciation of the r1ght, as 1f lt consisted more in
a v1olat1on of the fundamental conception of . .
_ _ _ sound than in substance. lt IS the duty of the courts
Our eellelltullellel llfe• Governmental Power to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the
was Cl1St1‘1lJl1te(l and scattered into separate citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments
jurisdictignsy dgpgrtmgntgy and agencies for the thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis."’
express purpose of safeguarding our institutions
of self-government and individual freedom THIS WARNING, to “oppose encroachments
from governmental oppression. To strike at at the start,” is more needed today than ever in
this principle is not “liberalizing," °°m0derniz- ` our history; it is the technique with which to
ing”; it is setting up a new scheme of govern. oppose this confessed technique.
ment. The Supreme Court has dogmatically I The President himself urged Congress to pass
declared—and even unanimously in one eeee a bill notwithstanding “doubts as to constitu-
where these very principles were at issue—that tionality, however reasonable.” Congress itself
recent legislation was destructive of our con- seems perfectly willing to enact laws without
stitutional system itself. It is not a modernizing any great legal scrutiny and to pass them on to
adaptation of governmental jurisdiction to “ob-V ‘ the courts for final decision as to their con-
literate” the States and set up an unlimited stitutionality. We would hesitate to accuse the
8 . 9
Administration with deliberately pieening to tional restraint. For instance, Henry W`allace’s
accumulate laws ef questionable Validity, OF of impetuous outburst in characterizing the effects
known invalidity, and with passing the respon- j of a Supreme Court decision as Mtho greatest
that u rcccru ceuld be made that It le the eemits _. Executive and Legislature from Constitutional
which crc mwarung the Pepuler W11i’ but fer accountability by curbing the jurisdiction of the
thc fact mat cue whs has en-ieyed hlgh ems? Courts, especially in injunction cases; attempts
deuriei fever and has been euieumeteneed m hte to single out the judiciary as the barrier to social
efiieiei eentaets SO as te be able te Speak kneW` and economic progress; threats to increase the
ingly, said in respect of the necessity of meeting numbor of the Supreme Court judges SO as to
iussucs mstcrni F make place for those having more sympathetic
“One group, as you know, headed by my friend views; and suggestions, politics permitting, that
Professor Frankfurter of Harvard is rather anxious amendment to the Constitution be mede_
that this should be done by getting the Supreme
Court gradually to modify its views. I think the
°" " " .’ i this
f.i‘;‘;';Z1’I”&T§;i. 1E.‘;‘;°;?3.?‘ZZ;‘;°i?. ,h£“,E§;°i£§. ,1., OIIISIIIF OF OFFICIAL CIFCIFF the
court will modify its more dogmatic statements, its iY0V€i-`SY is cui`Yi€(i OH with 3 Cfusuilillg, 31'Hl, ill
very broad dicta about interstate commerce. Another some instances, a belligerent temper. Decisions
group prefers te do the ish